Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 803179 times)

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1560 on: 09/27/2018 06:50 am »
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2018 01:30 pm by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1561 on: 09/27/2018 05:19 pm »
Anyone now how far back I have to go to find info RE what energy is actually being dissipated by the device in what form?  Mass, deg C rise, V and I applied, etc?

I've uncovered an idiot claiming it must be withstanding about 1.23 MW/pound of brass ration mass involved.  I know he is doing his dimensional analysis wrong, but I don't know where to start from correctly.

IOW, what's the best way to get on the mailing list?
« Last Edit: 09/27/2018 05:25 pm by tdperk »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1562 on: 09/29/2018 05:05 am »
Anyone now how far back I have to go to find info RE what energy is actually being dissipated by the device in what form?  Mass, deg C rise, V and I applied, etc?

I've uncovered an idiot claiming it must be withstanding about 1.23 MW/pound of brass ration mass involved.  I know he is doing his dimensional analysis wrong, but I don't know where to start from correctly.

IOW, what's the best way to get on the mailing list?

TDperk:

The 8, 19mm OD by 2mm thick disk SM-111 version of the MEGA-drive with truncated rubber gasket between the brass reaction mass and the aluminum L-mounting bracket, has an overall loaded Q at 1w = ~36kHz of around 60.  That implies that when its input RF ac power in Volt-Amp-Reactive (VAR)s is around 100 VARs, the thermally dissipated power in the PZT stack is around 1.67 watts.

Best, Paul March   
Star-Drive

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1563 on: 10/01/2018 03:27 pm »
Thank you, Paul.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1564 on: 10/01/2018 04:14 pm »
Gee, how can we order one of those? What's the product catalog # ?   ;)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1565 on: 10/01/2018 04:16 pm »
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.

I think it was Tajmar who said there was a need for "bulk coupling" - ie. solids work best, because all the mass is stuck together and has to move in unison.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1566 on: 10/02/2018 10:48 am »
My current opinion on the recent results, based on some quick simulations, is that using the brass washers has greatly reduced one of the critical degrees of freedom necessary to create the first "thrust" signal. That has produced another signal that happens to be of greater magnitude, but is still simply an "edge-case" type of oscillation. More tests are needed.

Why would use of the brass washers adversely affect the thrust? What problem would they pose?




Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1567 on: 10/31/2018 07:29 pm »
I was wondering.   Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement?  (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?)  Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls).  Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)

They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.

I think it was Tajmar who said there was a need for "bulk coupling" - ie. solids work best, because all the mass is stuck together and has to move in unison.

I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'. As i understand it, what is needed is a changing rest-mass of the accelerating mass using the accelerating force on that mass. The Woodward device uses a dielectric for storing deformation energy in the internal electric field (so the mass changes with dE/c^2).
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1568 on: 10/31/2018 07:48 pm »
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

« Last Edit: 10/31/2018 07:50 pm by sanman »

Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1569 on: 11/01/2018 04:01 pm »
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

Yes it looks like only a solid can do this, but i wonder: compressing a gas will also store energy, so why wouldn't a resonating gas-collomn show a mach-effect?
As long as the actual gas-molecules move back and forth (not only a wave but actual gas-flow), it should show a mach-effect. The effect unfortunately is symetric so the average is zero (probably except for a very small deviation in the expected resonance frequency). Perhaps a 'half-pipe' would work? There will be a lot of friction though.

Offline soms42

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1570 on: 11/03/2018 12:42 pm »
Check it out: he claims 0.5 gram of  push!
In 2012! Why is the rest working with 6micro newtons?

« Last Edit: 11/03/2018 01:18 pm by soms42 »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1571 on: 11/03/2018 08:48 pm »
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...
Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.

To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.
A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)

Yes it looks like only a solid can do this, but i wonder: compressing a gas will also store energy, so why wouldn't a resonating gas-collomn show a mach-effect?
As long as the actual gas-molecules move back and forth (not only a wave but actual gas-flow), it should show a mach-effect. The effect unfortunately is symetric so the average is zero (probably except for a very small deviation in the expected resonance frequency). Perhaps a 'half-pipe' would work? There will be a lot of friction though.

you get the effect by mixing frequencies via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle.  If you take a sinusoidal displacement of frequency f and introduce another 2f frequency of specific phase you get asymmetric acceleration. 

If you continue the frequency series you can increase the mach effect.  This post references some of my past posts.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.msg1871885#msg1871885

specifically this image you will notice the equation is a sum of frequencies.

sin(x)+1/2*sin(2*x-%pi/2)+1/4*sin(3*x-%pi)+1/8*sin(4*x-3/2*%pi)+1/16*sin(5*x) plotted from x=(0 to 4*%pi)  for comparison it is compared to the function sin(x)

so you should be able to mix frequencies in a cavity via the the superposition principal.  This is why they use the PZT material in the woodward effect to provide the 2f frequency.  I think the PZT material may not even be needed by just manually introducing the 2nd 2f frequency and controlling the phase.  The effect could be enhanced by continuing the series of frequencies and by having control of the phase you control the direction of thrust. I.e. the sum of the serries can be flipped to provide acceleration in the desired direction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

Its speculated objects that exist under acceleration have their effective mass changed in gravitational wells.  So by creating asymmetric acceleration you change the effective mass of the object being accelerated.  If true it probably represents some coupling/decoupling w.r.t. to the vacuum.

In fact velocity probably has some effect on effective mass which probably represents some coupling with the vacuum related to  Lorentz contraction.  In fact I think it was WarpTech that showed me some equation that had both acceleration and velocity having some effect on the effective mass.  I can't remember where I saw it now. 

Edit: on a side note, I was a little worried that the change in acceleration the electrons could cause a non-linear effect which would make the superposition principle a little off.  idea was you change the phase of the secondary frequency to compensate maybe. I.e. that they would re emit light in an out of phase way so that you have to pump in a bunch of extra energy to compensate, to keep the electrons in the proper phase.  On the other hand that would imply doing extra work.  What that imply extra thrust?  I need to look more into it.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2018 02:36 pm by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1572 on: 11/09/2018 04:44 pm »
The latest missive from Jim Woodward regarding the validity of the simulations I presented at the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop. The message below was sent out to a large number of individuals on his email list this morning.

Sufficed to say, Jim's claim that his torsional pendulum can ONLY move to the side if acted upon by real thrust or an outside force is just not the case.  There are several ways to trick a torsional pendulum and using multi-body oscillators is one of the most obvious.   

The claim that the Autodesk Inventor simulation is violating conservation of momentum is without merit. Autodesk Inventor is a program used internationally at the largest companies and its solutions guarantee conservation of momentum.  In fact, it is used at universities to teach conservation of momentum.

It was clear from the email chain yesterday that I was going to include the spring stiffness of the central flexture bearings but it would be best to start with a frictionless bearing with zero spring stiffness and then add the spring stiffness later once that was set up.  It is best to approach these problems step-by-step so I was very surprised that he insinuated there were other motives.  Here is what I said exactly: "I think the best way to get started is to create frictionless bearings in Inventor with zero spring stiffness. As 0.0074 lb-in/degree is a very small force, we can run a simpler experiment first with zero stiffness, and then add the 0.0074 lb-in/degree once we have it working with zero. My prediction is the flexure bearing spring stiffness has very little effect on the final signal as the displacement comes from the oscillations of the MET component parts."

I also take exception to his claim that there have been vitriolic comments from either myself or any supporters. I've exchanged only one email with Jim over the entire matter, which was yesterday, and will post that in another comment below.

Regards,
Jamie





From: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 7:26 AM
Subject: 9 November 2018


"Gentlefolk,

This occasional update (note that I have given up on getting these updates out on a weekly basis) is going to be a little different from the usual fare.  That is because I have been convinced that what has proceeded as a technical argument among a small subset of those of you on this list (and occasionally a few others) should be given wider circulation.  Many technical arguments are not well suited to this list as they involve details of interest only to a few of you.  This argument, however, is absolutely fundamental and can be dealt with without a lot of formal detail.  So I am presenting it to you for your bemusement.

The argument in question is over whether a "simulation", done by one of you, that purports to show that the thrusts recorded in our lab here at CSUF can be explained as a mere "Newtonian artifact" that does NOT mean that Mach effects are real is correct.  This simulation was presented at the Estes Park workshop a couple of months ago by the simulator and strongly supported by others of you disinclined to accept that the thrust results we have obtained are evidence for the reality of Mach effects.  At the workshop, and subsequently in smaller circulations, I have repeatedly pointed out that the simulation is wrong for it violates momentum conservation.  Those favoring the claims of the simulator have accused me on not understanding (and having made "incorrect" statements about) momentum conservation and being insensitive to the subtleties of "non-linear dynamics" because I have not spent time working with simulations -- among other things.  The underlying question that has occasioned the at times vitriolic comments about my explication of why the simulation is wrong is simple: when the device in the Faraday cage on one end of the thrust balance beam is turned on (if all of the conditions required by Mach effects are present), why does the thrust balance respond by being deflected through a small angle that is optically detected as a displacement of the opposite end of the balance beam?  I claim that these results are clear and compelling evidence for the reality of Mach effects.

The simulator's answer to this question is that the vibration set up by the device in the Faraday cage is communicated to the balance beam which, in turn, vibrates at the frequency of the devices vibration.  This causes the beam to oscillate about a "new" zero position that is displaced from the zero position of the beam in the absence of vibration.   Sounds good, doesn't it?  And when accompanied by a movie, it can seem quite likely.  But it is wrong, because it violates momentum conservation.  The reason why is actually quite simple: if only energy (and no momentum) is added to the device in the Faraday cage to make it vibrate, then no real, time-averaged, steady force on the device and Faraday cage can be produced.  The details of any vibration in the device/cage are completely irrelevant.  They can be anything you desire as long as they do not generate an interaction with the outside world where momentum transfer might be possible.  The ONLY way that such a real force can be generated is either by the addition or subtraction of MOMENTUM to/from the cage and device from the outside world, or by coupling to the external world via a field (the gravitational field of chiefly distant matter in the case of Mach effects for example).  There is no argument about the fact that "Newtonian artifacts" cannot make isolated systems accelerate by the production of real forces in such systems by the way.  This is why the simulator and his supporters claim that Mach effect devices will not work as "space drives" -- no real, time-averaged, net force on the cage and the device therein is generated by "Newtonian artifacts" which they assert is what we are measuring.

The next question is: what happens when the cage and device are placed on the end of a thrust balance beam and the device is activated?  Well, the thrust balance itself is a "passive" device in the sense that it brings no energy or momentum to the system of the device and cage plus the thrust balance (and the block of granite on which the balance rests).  So the thrust balance cannot produce the momentum flux required to deflect the beam from its zero position.  That must come from the device and cage.  But all agree that "Newtonian artifacts" do not produce such forces. So it would seem that the momentum conservation argument is correct.  But the simulator argues that the vibration induced in the beam by the cage/device makes the beam vibrate to a new time-averaged position that is recorded as a thrust (because the vibrations are "asymmetric" supposedly).

If the thrust balance were a simple pivoted beam, the simulator's scheme might work.  But the thrust balance is NOT  a simple pivoted beam.  The pivot bearings (C-Flex E - 10 bearings in fact) provide a restoring torque that enforces the zero position of the beam.  So, when the device starts vibrating, after perhaps a small transient response, the beam returns to its zero position notwithstanding that the cage and device are vibrating.  The simulator and one of his supporters want you to believe that this restoring torque is so small as to be completely negligible.  But this is wrong.  The restoring torque IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE.  Taking it as negligible is what gives his specious result and makes the simulation violate momentum conservation.

The fact of the matter is that the restoring torque of the pivot bearings is sufficiently large to give an oscillation period for the ~ 50 cm long beam (supported by the bearings at the center) with 400 grams at each end of the beam of about 6 seconds.  When the device is activated in non-Machian circumstances -- at the mechanical resonance frequency of the device, about 31 khz where the vibrations are much larger than at the Machian frequency of 36.3 khz for example -- or the (slightly less than critically damped) balance is pulsed with the calibration coils, the settling time is found to be between 5 and 6 seconds.  This is not due to a restoring torque that can be neglected in any circumstances.

If you want to believe the simulator, you might be thinking: what if we take the cage and device as one system and the balance as another and assume that the cage and device acting on the balance beam somehow produces the steady real force in the device/cage needed to deflect the beam from the zero position?  The problem with this wishful thinking is that only energy is added to the total system.  So if a real force on the device/cage is produced, an equal and opposite force must appear in the system to conserve total linear momentum.  The obvious place to locate this compensating opposite force -- which cannot act at the location of the cage/device as it would cancel the deflecting force -- is at the pivot bearings of the balance.  This conserves linear momentum.  But now you have a violation of angular momentum as an unbalanced force "couple" has been created where before activation of the device with energy only there was none.

The simple fact of the matter is that the simulation violates momentum conservation, as I have said all along.  Yesterday, as this argument proceeded in a small group, after agreeing that the balance actually needed to be modeled, the simulator and his most ardent supporter argued that the restoring torque of the pivot bearings was so small that it could be taken as zero.  There's a good reason for their so arguing.  It guarantees that their momentum conservation violating simulation will appear to work.  But, as we've seen here above, this assumption is simply WRONG.  And the simulation is also wrong because it violates momentum conservation.

By the way, if you'd like to be taken off this circulation, please let me know. . . .

Very best,

Jim"
« Last Edit: 11/09/2018 10:50 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1573 on: 11/09/2018 04:48 pm »
From: Jamie
To: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Test recommended that Heidi is referring to

Professor Woodward,
Thank you for the clarification on the wall thickness of the extruded aluminum tube. I am pretty familiar with the thrust balance as I referred heavily to images of it and your descriptions in various papers when preparing the simulations for the Estes Park workshop.

As for the computer simulations producing results that violate conservation of momentum, I remember we came to an impasse about this point during your last session at Estes Park. As the simulations rely on newtonian physics, the only way I can think of that they can produce results that violate conservation of momentum is through "floating point rounding errors." However, I checked for this by greatly refining the solver accuracy with no changes in the results. With that ruled out, we are left with little options for such a major error to be possible.

You may also remember from my Estes Park presentation that I have built a low-thrust torsional pendulum with ~0.2uN accuracy. Using the knowledge I gained from the simulations I have also now built two electromechanical devices that mimic the thrust signals in the real world when used on a thrust balance. You can also see the graph attached to this email below.

It is an interesting simulation problem that I enjoy spending my free time on. Also, thank you for the offer to provide more detailed info on the Fullerton balance. I will be in touch.

Regards,
Jamie

Inline image


From: "Woodward, James"
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: Test recommended that Heidi is referring to

Mr. Ciomperlik,

Heidi is mistaken.  The square tubing is 1/16 inch wall material.  And the balance is actually much more complicated than just the crude information she has provided.

Aside from the technical details of the balance, you may want to consider how much work you want to invest in this project -- a project I note that neither NAMES REDACTED deem sufficiently important to invest their own effort in carrying through.  (I am always reminded in these sorts of situations of Faraday's comment when asked by a reporter if any member of the general public had ever made a recommendation to him of something important he later pursued:  No, I have always found that those with important suggestions are capable and willing to carry them through themselves.)  If, however, you want to pursue this project, it would do no harm to have a reasonable model of the balance.  But you should be aware that it will not show the observations to be due to some "Newtonian artifact".  What it will show if it shows a displacement of the beam due to the activation of the device, is that contrary to NAME REDACTED claim, AI can indeed produce results that violate momentum conservation -- something worth knowing I suppose.

I am attaching a picture of the balance for your information should you decide to pursue this project.  Note the various attachments to the beam, each of which suppresses high frequency vibrations (both intentional and incidental), especially the eddy current damper and 400 gram counterpoise mass in the immediate vicinity of the optical probe location at the left end of the beam.  And especially the yoke that supports the Faraday cage at the right hand end, made with lots of 4-40 screws, washers, and buna-n O-rings to decouple any vibration in the device and Faraday cage from the beam.  (This was done to suppress vibration that might affect the flexural bearings.  See Starships, chapter 5 for the test for vibration on the flex bearings.)

If you decide to proceed, if you want further information, as the builder of the balance (most of the parts for which were machined by my former grad student, Tom Mahood), I'll be happy to provide you with such information as I can.

Jim Woodward

P.S.  You may be interested to know that a single point laser vibrometer system suited to making direct measurements of the beam is presently being sought.  So reality will eventually overtake this project if that search is successful.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2018 06:44 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1574 on: 11/09/2018 06:29 pm »
Sufficed to say, Jim's claim that his torsional pendulum can ONLY move to the side if acted upon by real thrust or an outside force is just not the case.  There are several ways to trick a torsion pendulum and using multi-body oscillators is one of the most obvious.   
In case anyone doubts that torsion pendulums can be tricked, I find an even simpler example to be the case of a flywheel placed on the end of the pendulum. With proper acceleration and deceleration, you can force it to trace out any thrust curve you desire. Another problem with Woodward's arguments is that by nature, the pendulum has a counterweight, so conservation of momentum does not forbid motion, and the torque from the pendulum wire means the system is not isolated in the angular momentum sense. (They are still the device of choice for measuring forces like this, but you can't just conclude something from a "black box" demonstration, you have to consider the limitations.) More basic physics mistakes from Woodward, which should not be surprising.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1575 on: 11/10/2018 02:15 am »
Monomorphic,

Would you like a good cheese with that whine?

You are a global leader. Higher expectations and closer examination go with the responsibility of being a global leader.

I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order. Not exactly a scholarly approach and clearly lacking a lot of details of what was incorrect about the simulation from your POV and how you can do better. 

Yes, the MEGA folks need to address the stiction issue(s) and others. and yes, you need to improve your simulation and match MEGA devices which have been working and producing thrust. That includes building into the simulation the various physical connections, producing an event timing diagram, examine both frequency and time domains, and many other details.

Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, 
Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.

Animation is usually used for illustration in general lectures as well as seeing how complex systems operate or fail.

Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.

IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.

Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.

It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.

Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.

Also, be prepared to address all forms of jitter. You might want to look at small signal analysis including not just FFT but Wavelet analysis as well.

Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodward’s work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.

So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.

David


Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1576 on: 11/10/2018 03:42 am »
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.

I thought that's what we were doing until I woke up to an email sent to a bunch of influential people I don't know disparaging my work and accusing me of ulterior motives.

Speaking of ulterior motives, don't you think you should disclose you've been trying to get people together to start a business around propellantless propulsion, specifically the mach effect thruster and emdrive?  ;)
« Last Edit: 11/10/2018 04:14 am by Monomorphic »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1577 on: 11/10/2018 04:53 am »
I think most people who have followed the EM drive threads for years will agree that  monomorphic started as an enthusiast of EM drive. After all, a non-believer from beginning will not invest years of spare time and much of his own money on EM drive or MEGA work. So the  thought of bad motive is groundless.

That said, while simulations can give hints of what really happens, a test of the real drive is necessary. Dr. Woodward should consider lending a MEGA drive to monomorphic for testing. This or other interested group with money should consider granting some $ for this endeavor, for science's sake.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1578 on: 11/10/2018 05:15 am »
I have wondered myself if putting a vibrating weight on the end of a spring loaded pendulum might not shift the pendulum by just adding energy to the spring which stretches it.  Is this what is being speculated to happen? 

Let us for instance take the weight on the end to have the mass of a planet in space.  Only the beam will shift in this case.  Fully contracted the beam remains in its original position.  Upon vibration, it will exist on average in between its fully extended position and fully contracted position. 

If we make the beam and weight of equal effective mass (considering rotating objects with mass) then both their fully extended displacement equilibrium should be equal distance from the fully contracted position.  If the weight remained extended then of the spring would bring the beam back to center, but with vibrations I think the spring will not be able to remain at zero energy. 

I guess the question might be if the pendulum spring can move to a position where it osculates back and forth about its previous equilibrium after being thrown off by expanding the weight under continuous osculation.  I want to say no under the case of equal effective mass because of momentum conservation.  with equal beam and weight displacement the beam has its momentum which gives it half the energy and the weigh thrown the other way has its momentum giving it the other half the energy. 
Edit: On the other hand the spring force provides a force different from just the shifting masses.

Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding. 

To avoid the confusion, my advice would be to make a point at the end of the beam to mount the vibrating motor that is adjustable.  Find the sweet spot where when the system is expanded, there is no deflection of the beam.  Then vibrate to your hearts content. 

That or a friction-less floating system where it can accumulate momentum.  Possibly linear.  Maybe like they did with the photonic laser thruster. 
« Last Edit: 11/10/2018 06:42 am by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1579 on: 11/10/2018 06:26 am »
Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, 
Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.
Not how peer review works, and just one of theory, experiment, or simulation can be sufficient for a paper. That is how research works, so that one person can come up with an idea, and someone else can refine it, or use different resources they have to test it.

Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.

IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.
None of that actually says anything technically wrong with the simulation, or any reason to use a different tool. Some even goes off on a tangent about tools like Matlab/Simulink which simply are an entirely worse tool for this application. At best they would be for a lower fidelity model than what was already done, with more potential for mistakes.

Organizations that require a specific tool do so for consistency, so they don't need to maintain a large number of expensive licenses for different tools. Such decisions will be biased towards tools with more advanced cutting edge features which are irrelevant in this situation.

Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.

It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.
You seem to have entirely missed the point. If a fake thrust signal can be generated entirely without the new physics effects, and experiments show a signal that is comparable to the expectation from standard forces, that negates the experiments as evidence of new physics.

Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.
There is an issue in your post where you failed to actually name a specific issue with the simulation while claiming there was one. It seems you have nothing other than bias. Also, no amount of hollow praise for Woodward changes the fact that he still hasn't retracted the paper he wrote that failed at high school level physics, or the fact that his statements in the posted e-mails are just as wrong.

Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodward’s work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.
Your opinion is wrong. If a device like Woodward's produces a fake thrust signal, that is an actual real error in Woodward's experiments that he has to account for. If Woodward believes there is still a signal underneath that, he will have to do the work to either build a device that only has his signal and not the extra fake thrust, or he has to very carefully characterize and remove the extra signal. It is no one else's responsibility to do that, and he is the one with access to the full sets of historical data.

So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.
One good part of your post that I can agree with, as long as the carry through does not include using tools that are a step backwards, or wasting money on more expensive tools that don't do anything different in a basic dynamics analysis.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0